Embryo wars - science, morality and a Bill ...

The Embryo Bill finally gets its second reading in Parliament today. The three main questions put to MPs will be:
Hybrid embryos: scientists want to create embryos that are over 99% human for research into stem cells by implanting DNA from an adult human nucleus into a cow or rabbit egg.
Access to IVF for lesbian couples: the bill changes the wording of the current act to remove the "need for a father" provision for children conceived by IVF.
"Saviour siblings". The circumstances in which children genetically matched to a sibling with a genetic disease can be created by IVF are to be relaxed.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries has also tabled amendments to reduce the limit for abortions to 20 weeks instead of the current 24. For more on the proposals see the Guardian.

the debate:

I don’t think there’s been a reasoned debate in the media about the Bill. There’s been hyperbole from Cardinal Keith O'Brien warning against ‘Frankenstein science’, there’s been the question of allowing a free vote on certain aspects but not the entire Bill, but no debate. I wonder how MPs have taken a decision on how to vote on the legislation. What did they read? Whom have they consulted? What principles have they applied?

It is a moral issue. However, as usual, the more liberal voices do not make the news. I believe morality has a place within liberalism (as a philosophy, in fact I believe liberal ideas are fundamentally moral ideas. I would thus welcome moral issues being discussed in the public arena from a liberal point of view, which is what I try to do on this blog. (See BBC on previous stem cell research controversy).

the morality:

Scientific and technological advancements are increasingly entering the sphere of morality. Whilst some neglect the moral implications of medical or scientific research, some others are monopolising the moral discourse and firmly grounding it along absolutist lines, such as embryos having equal value to human beings and so on. I’m not clear what the official or unofficial position of the various groups is as the debate on abortion has been added to the issue of stem cell research and the issue is getting rather muddled.
From my perspective, morality being ‘not in heaven’, but down here, where there are real situations, benefits, harm, good and evil, all at the same time, it cannot be reduce to black and white. It is about choosing what is best, or better or, sometimes, just the lesser evil. There are various interpretations of ‘life’ (especially when it starts and ends) and there are many aspects to its sanctity. This is why you need flexibility, which makes Judaism complex, but isn’t life complex?

From a ‘moral point of view’, I believe society should pursue the common good. Human beings are partners in creation with God and are under moral obligation to fight injustice and suffering, be that coming from our own actions or the natural environment. From the point of view of ‘moral liberalism’, we should strive to reconcile the pursuit of the common good with individual freedom. General moral principles, however, such as the ‘sanctity of life’, require interpretation in the light of knowledge of facts.

science & morality:

In this instance, hybrid embryos are considered by the scientific community to be an avenue to find a cure for diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. There might not be the only one, but a pretty good one. It is true that it is now possible to employ adult stem cells, however this is so because scientists have developed the necessary knowledge based on their research on embryonic stem cells. As such, the case for the pursuit of the common good is, I believe, quite clear. The present Bill seems to be putting in place the right safeguards while allowing research that can save many lives. The Bill does not allow the creation from scratch of embryos, nor are the hybrid embryos allowed to develop after 14 days or to be implanted.

In Judaism (see, for example, Orthodox site Aish), life does not start at conception, but later on. This is mostly derived by the pecuniary sanctions imposed on someone who unintentionally causes a miscarriage by striking a woman (Ex.21,22). It is not a capital crime.
The foetus becomes a full human being once it’s born. Nevertheless, it is protected during the pregnancy and abortion ‘on demand’ is not halachically permitted. There need to be serious grounds for abortion to be allowed, which vary depending on the specific situation. They tend to include psychological trauma to the mother, rape, incest and, for some, disability. Opinions vary, however, on what constitute legitimate grounds, not only between Reform Liberal and Orthodox Judaism, but also within each movement. Most importantly, it cannot be regulated according to general principles; rather it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

That’s why most Jewish leaders from across the religious spectrum have supported the Bill.

Maidenhead Synagogue Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain said:

“Judaism is just as concerned at the sanctity of human life as Catholicism but strongly differs from Cardinal Keith O'Brien's Easter sermon against the Embryology Bill. The creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for medical research is not to be condemned as 'Frankenstein science' but welcomed as a life-saving development that uses our God-given skills in the noblest of causes.
Crossing boundaries always carries risks, but providing safeguards against abuse are put in place, there is no need to fear the future and it is irresponsible to hold-back the progress that could benefit so many lives. The Cardinal is accusing scientists of creating monsters, but maybe it is even more monstrous to obstruct possible cures.”

New Policy on Comments

This blog is a way for me to think through the moral aspects of interesting issues I stumble upon in the news. It is my attempt to create a space for the development of liberal morality. I welcome comments that are pertinent to my articles and that pose questions on the philosophical principles of the issues discussed. I am unlikely to answer any comment that I deem irrelevant. I will also not allow any comments referring to constituency matters or Cardiff Council.
As I take a Parmedian approach to writing, I delete posts and comments from time to time. This is sometimes because I don't like them or because I wrote a better post on the same issue. It is my online diary!
If your ego is hurt, don’t worry, it’s good for the soul!

Bloody Liberals

I don’t know how Americans have come to restrict their vocabulary so much, but the dichotomy Liberals (which in the US is taken to mean left, from centre-left to loony-left) and Conservatives (meaning right-wing) seriously distorts any meaningful understanding of political science. Such acception empties the term ‘liberal’ of its authentic meaning. Liberal does not mean lefty!!!
When such flawed terminology is applied to morality is epistemologically wrong and just bonkers. It leads to the endorsement of an old-fashioned political duality left/right (what about the true liberals?), which in ethics becomes Manichean. In short: it’s nonsense.
The culprit this time are a group of ‘moral psychologists’, including Professor Jonathan Haidt, who has caused me great irritation by entering the world of political theory, philosophy and theology with the instruments of biology. It's a bit like analysing a poem with a ruler.
I’m not against moral psychology per se. It seems obvious to me that human beings, as part of the natural world, would have biological traits that would support the development of ideas and morality. You can’t play music without an instrument (I include the voice as instrument). I have no problem even accepting that some people might have a certain predisposition to behaving in a ‘moral’ way, such as giving to charity, having compassion of others etc. This is why, at least in Judaism, charity is charity when it involves a ‘sacrifice’, when it ‘pains’ you in some way. But this stuff is seriously flawed.

The ‘fun’ part are the tests. Haidt has researched the phenomenon of disgust, but his interpretation of the term is a bit off the wall and its application in the tests simply puzzling. I mean, one might not find eating paper disgusting, but if the question asks you to choose between a piece of fruit and paper, isn’t the one who chooses paper just an eejit?
It turns out my ‘disgust’ scale is higher than average. For Haidt this should mean that I have a strong sense of purity/sanctity, which is linked to mortality, the body, blood etc. I take it to mean that I have good manners!
They are clearly (badly) designed for Americans and many questions just don’t make sense. For example:

- Say something bad about your nation (which you don't believe to be true) while calling in, anonymously, to a talk-radio show in a foreign nation.

Err, just read my blog! I do mean what I say though when I write about Italy and the UK. I do not, however, ascribe the problems I encounter with both countries to inherent characteristics of the (ever changing) populations. I'd like to think my whinges are analyses of the socio-political situation at the present moment.

- Curse the founders or early heroes of your country (in private, nobody hears you).

If it’s in private and if they are dead, what’s the point of cursing them? Seriously, in Europe this doesn't make any sense. Besides, what is a 'curse'? A complaint? An insult? A shout for help? An attempt to break free from authority and affirm one's personhood?

- Renounce your citizenship and take one of another country.

I am a EU citizen, which means there’s no point in changing it to another European national citizenship. I wouldn’t give up my EU citizenship because it gives me more rights than probably any other. Besides, giving it up would require moving or applying for permanent leave and so on. I'm, of course, culturally European but citizenship is a legal category.


The problem with Haidt’s theory. These tests seem to aim to identify a 'instinctive' morality, however morality is contextual. There are always
conditions one is in and consequences for one's action. That's why biology can't measure it.
Haidt has developed the psychological understanding of morality from matters of harm, rights and justice to include other categories such as loyalty and authority, thus going beyond the individual. He claims that there are five psychological foundations for the world’s many moralities: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.
He also claims “Cultures vary on the degree to which they build virtues on these five foundations. As a first approximation, political liberals value virtues based on the first two foundations, while political conservatives value virtues based on all five. A consequence of this thesis is that justice and related virtues (based on the fairness foundation) make up half of the moral world for liberals, while justice-related concerns make up only one fifth of the moral world for conservatives.”

Haidt misses the point. He wants people to get on so if liberals and conservatives could understand each other a bit more, the world would be a better place. The point of Liberalism (European acception) is that you do not impose your morals on others. I might be part of a religious/political/cultural community, but I have the right to criticise it, act according to what I think is right, not just what the group or authority decides. So Haidt’s harm and fairness should be replaced with freedom of choice.

1. Language: Haidt makes assumptions about the meaning of the words he employs. This is evident in the tests, where one needs to apply their intended meaning and restrict one’s answers. For example, he mentions chastity in relation to purity/sanctity, what does it mean? To me, chastity can refer to many things, not just sexuality. When referred to sexuality, I interpret it as sex in a respectful and meaningful relationship, since I believe that there is something sacred about (respectful) relationships, love and sexuality (this interpretation of chastity is also part of the Vatican thinking). I would not interpret it, however, as ‘no sex before marriage’. However, I fear that Haidt attaches that narrow meaning to the world. Not to mention ‘purity’ which in Judaism is a rather difficult concept best explained as immanence. It follows that it gets interpreted and re-interpreted according to the context. Haidt’s rigidity of interpretation makes the whole exercise pointless.

2. Liberalism vs. Communitarianism: Haidt could have referred to the dichotomy of liberalism/communitarianism (which might require some political science). Of course, in this context, liberals are NOT Haidt’s lefties. In fact, arguably, many concerns of social justice come from the communitarian tradition rather than the liberal one. Haidt mentions policies of positive discrimination which are clearly not policies descending from liberal philosophy (although they might be adopted by liberal parties). As a liberal, I have some problems with communitarianism, however I believe that my liberalism comes from my morality and that our rights and freedoms are dependent on us living in a society. If I were on a desert island, I wouldn’t have any rights or duties, although I could play lots of records without bothering colleagues ;) (sorry, a Radio 4 moment).

3. Liberalism: real liberalism, unlike Haidt’s broad coalition of lefties, rests upon the idea of individual autonomy above community. It does not however mean that the individual is not in the community. Therefore, individual claims need to be adjusted to the ‘claims’ of the community. The idea of authority also presents difficulties. In traditional societies, the male ‘elders’ might have been the authority dictating the rules of behaviour, but we no longer live in a traditional society. The democratic ideal has sunk deeply into our conscience and ‘traditional authority’ has waned. However, if by ‘authority’ we mean legitimate ‘power’ such as the legal system, we are bound by it.

4. Utilitarianism: Haidt’s lack of political analysis seems to justify a utilitarian position with a streak of relativism. He argues that for those of conservative views, their attachment to order and perceived lack of change serves a human need. Morality goes beyond usefulness. You cannot justify harm or injustice on the basis of usefulness. Human beings are not pawns of society. This is fundamental to religion and to liberalism and this is why I think liberalism has moral foundations.

5. Modernity: personal autonomy is a modern philosophical category (and reality!). This means that I might consider the Talmud or the Bible authoritative, however I would interpret its teaching in the light of the ethical principles I derive from my tradition. This means that I don’t read the Bible literally, which is a relatively recent (200yrs) trend anyway!

6. Morality is contextual: in order to understand a situation in its ethical perspective, one needs to consider the conditions in which of the moral agent acts, the likely consequences, what brings the moral agent to act in a certain way. E.g. we can say that adultery is wrong, but if the adulterer has suffered domestic violence for years and fears leaving the spouse, is most definitely not the same. As I argued before, a moral dilemma is NOT about right and wrong, but wrong and wrong (with a bit of right on both sides probably).

The politics of the West Wing

I feel like being trivial today so here we go: the West Wing. Let me start by saying that I really enjoy the show. It’s well written, has rhythm and is generally well acted. Now, let me demolish it.

The boys' club: There is an underlying patronising attitude to the female characters, which I can't stand. It would have been nice if the writers had put more effort into making these characters more authoritative and credible rather than go for the good looks, shrill voice, 'I'm just a girl' character. That’s entertainment, I suppose.
However, I believe one can still be funny and goofy while making intelligent statements, such as like spilling your tea while pontificating about Rawls, a regular occurrence for some :).
The only ones who do not succumb to this fate are C.J., the First Lady and, to a lesser extent, Donna. Had it been a bit more female-oriented they could have developed the character of Donna, have a little more clash and attraction between Donna and Josh (Mary-Louise Parker as Amy Gardner can’t pull it off). C.J. should have become Chief of Staff at the end of the fourth series with Leo elected to something. With Donna working for the First Lady, the role of the First Lady could have been expanded too. They sort got stuck with a formula and didn't attempt to develop it. Shame.

It’s the economy, stupid: not in the West Wing obviously! The President is supposed to be a Nobel Prize winner in economics (whatever!), but economics and finance are hardly ever spoken of. When they are, the approach is so superficial to the point of irrelevance. I might be biased. I tend to think that there’s an economic aspect to nearly all things, especially in politics, but isn’t there? :)

The smartest kid in the class: there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of genius as dissociated from hard work and perseverance. Luckily, Martin Sheen has gravitas, charisma and tries to be a good guy so he can pull it off.

The retro feeling: the politics of the West Wing seems firmly set in the 1980s. I don’t know much about American politics, but the screen-writers seem to be living in their own bubble and enclose their characters in the West Wing bubble. No wonder the following of the show ended up being restricted to a particular section of society. No wonder only a few bother to vote if politics is so distant.
Everything seems to be happening inside the White House with Congress only getting a mention in passing, never mind the rest of the country. Unbeknown to the authors, theories of government/governance have changed profoundly and gone beyond the State vs. Free Market dichotomy. I don’t expect Aaron Sorkin to know about Public Value Management Theory, but a better grip, even on traditional politics, wouldn’t go amiss. I would have certainly liked more on Congress, the Cabinet and state politics across the US, which is steadily gaining prominence.
The other two big issues, which we are witnessing in the American primaries now, race and gender, are treated with lack of understanding and superficiality. I can’t believe that Amy Gardner, the head of the women’s lobby (whatever!) is asked to comment on the dichotomy ‘stay-at-home mum’ vs. ‘career-girl’ and after thinking about it (yep), she comes out with ‘I don’t care who stays at home as long as it’s their choice’ type of reply. Err … how about some research? How about the fact that the US are one of very few countries were statutory parental pay is not provided? Who can actually choose? What determines choice? How about the fact that women managers have started giving up their careers? Why not taking a look elsewhere where men are starting to value fatherhood and flexible working? Is there a class divide? Is there still a culture of division between work (public sphere) and home (private sphere)? By the way, the ‘fatherhood’ mantra from the feminists was full blown in the 1990s in the States. It needs better articulation in terms of policies and rights, but it has been there a long time.
The West Wing chickens out from the big questions and the difficult issues such as immigration, unemployment, finance and economic and social inequalities. They like international crises too much and don’t manage even to grasp the issues there. What happened to the old saying ‘write something you know about’?

I still enjoyed it though (notwithstanding intense moments of irritation). What I found interesting is the attempt to convey the idea of the American dream, in the tradition of Frank Capra. At first, it feels ... well ... American! It makes you cringe and wince, but then it seeps into you and lets you see a bit more.
It’s the sincere belief in America as an idea, as a country to be built, not inherited. It’s the mentality of a settler society, which is perhaps rather alien to us. Nevertheless, we face similar dilemmas. We would like our country and ourselves to be hospitable, to do the right thing, to uphold the law and defend minorities but we are faced with a very heterogeneous society where 'values' need interpretations that go deeper.
Governments look for answers in definitions of Britishness or Europeanness (remember the Constitution preamble?), and so do religious figures (see previous posts 1 and 2), but I feel they miss the point. They look at the past not for guidance but to pin down who we are and should be. I feel very European (which includes British) in my ways, habits, political philosophy etc. but I am a human being and my values, I believe, are human values. Freedom and equality do not stop at the border and we do not have the copyrights. As a wise man once said:

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

- Sir Ernest Benn

Italian elections from abroad

I have to say that, like many Italians right now, I flirted with the idea of not voting. There are many reasons for this: Italy is in deep crisis with too many groups defending vehemently their own interest with no regard for the rest of the population and the future of the country (see the opposition to TAV – high-speed trains; the opposition to the sale of Alitalia; opposition to the liberalisation of professions etc.). Italy has always been affected by deeply rooted corporativism, which sits uncomfortably in the globalised economy of the 21st century. There are many things that need to be done and yet political parties are squabbling. There is very little vision, direction and gravity.
Nonetheless I voted. After all, I thought that the people who might not vote at these elections are the moderate ones, those who are fed up with games, sound-bytes and shouts. This leaves the hard-core voters of Alleanza Nazionale (rightwingers), Lega Lombarda (Lombardy League) and the communists … oops the Sinistra Arcobaleno (those who would like to live in Cuba if it wasn’t for the systematic abuse of free speech and civil liberties). This is what made me vote! My vote counts.
The policies are similar and I haven’t got the time to look at the specifics or the costing. So it all comes down to trust, as in most elections.
I have no idea how much I can trust the coalition of the Partito Democratico (Centre-left) of which Italia dei Valori are part. I know I cannot trust Popolo delle Liberta' (Berlusconi’s party). Not because of Berlusconi, but because I don’t trust a party that did all they could to make the government fall. This is NOT responsible politics! It is NOT in the interest of the country, even of those who voted for the opposition.
I hope the new government, whoever they are, will have to guts to challenge the vested interest of small groups and bring Italy into the 21st century. I hope they will promote accountability and trust starting from the local level. And I sincerely hope that the opposition will work with the government to ensure that important reforms go through. We deserve this much!

As mentioned in my previous post, I contacted the main parties’ candidates and asked the same two questions, what they thought of the privatisation of Alitalia and the refuse problem in Naples without giving any hint about my position.
[Needless to say I’d like to see Alitalia sold to AirFrance, that being the best offer, thus giving Italian taxpayers a break as they’ve been dishing out cash to a badly managed ultra-protected company for donkeys years; while the refuse problem needs concerted action starting from tackling the mafia and introducing better ways to manage waste such as recycling, re-using but also green plants producing energy without releasing harmful emissions, yes they do exist! I would also like to see reforms to increase transparency and accountability for universities, the whole administration of justice and, of course, local government.]
The winner was Mr Angelo Berardini (Italia dei Valori – centre-left) with a very exhaustive and balanced reply, which I report below (sorry too long to translate).

Gentilissima Signora Francesca
Grazie per l'attenzione che ha voluto riservare alla mia candidatura nella lista dell'Italia Dei Valori.
I due temi che mi ha sottoposto sono importanti ed anche emblematici della realtà dell'Italia e della sua realtà socio-economica, rispetto all'Alitalia: la privatizzazione è una realtà e nello stesso tempo una necessità, semmai il problema è che in tutti questi anni essa è stata al centro di una politica di protezione che le ha impedito di competre nel mercato come hanno fatto altre compagnie aeree europee e internazionali; ritengo anacronistico ripresentare il tema dell'Italilanità dell'alitalia, è giunto il momento per essa di "navigare" in mare aperto e affrontare le onde e le burrasche con i suoi mezzi, che si attrezzi, che partecipi alla competizione del mercato attingendo alla professionalità, alla competenza e soprattutto all'abbandono del clientelismo di cui è stata vittima e carnefice nello stesso tempo. La questione dell'aeroporto Malpensa è un tema diverso e solo i mistificatori tendono a confondere le acque e a tenere insieme le due questioni.
Rispetto al tema dei rifiuti: prima di tutto chiederei, come del resto ha già fatto Di Pietro, le immediate dimissioni dei principali responsabili, in primis Bassolino e metterei in campo una governance di esperti totalmente indipendenti dal potere politico con il compito solo di portare a soluzione il problema dei rifiuti che per essere risolto ha bisogno di una molteplicità di interventi: educativo (cultura della raccolta differenziata), etico (cultura della legalità della responsabilità),
politico (coinvolgimento di tutti i cittadini singoli e raccolti in associazione in un'azione di denuncia e di ripristino sul tema dei siti), tecnico (bonifica delle scariche e individuazione di luoghi di stoccaggio), costruzione di nuovi e moderni impianti per lo smaltimento), chederei solidarietà e aiuto alle altre regioni (sempre dietro una rassicurazione che la richiesta è una tantum e che partecipa di un progetto integrato per la soluzione del problema, una volta tanto mi rivolgerei al popolo campano sano, quello che ha intelligenza e onestà per sollecitarlo a credere che la soluzione del problema è dipende in larga parte anche da lui.
Capisco che non ho risolto i problemi, ma spero di essere riuscito a far capire che alcune idee possono essere messe in campo.
Se eletto, come ho risposto adesso, così risponderò domani, fornendo soluzioni e accogliendo consigli.

To vote or not to vote?

It’s that time again of a long series of doubts, questions and lack of information. No, I’m not talking about the elections in Cardiff!! I’m referring to the Italian elections being held on the 13th of April. Voting by post, I only have time until the 7th apparently.
I haven’t thought much about it, I haven’t checked the political parties’ websites and know very little about the candidates. It feels very odd given that I’m someone who has no such doubts when it comes to politics in the UK.
Since the last elections, the Italian Parliament has MPs representing Italians living abroad. I don’t know the numbers of those eligible to vote but there are millions of Italians living across the globe!! How can these MPs actually do something for us except the odd law about Italian schools abroad and so on?
I don’t think it was the right thing to do. They should have created an elected representative post for each embassy instead. I would have very much liked someone representing my needs and interests as an Italian citizen in the UK. For example, I’d like someone campaigning for more support for Italian Cultural Institutes (the London and Edinburgh ones are great!) and so on.
Above everything else I’d like someone who keeps in touch and the current Italian MPs currently representing me have sent me no communications until now.
It is possible to choose one candidate among the list presented by each party writing his/her name on the ballot paper. The parties have, of course, chosen their ‘star’ candidate so I have no information on the others. The manifestos are all the same and terribly non-controversial that it’s impossible to make an informed choice. I don’t know what they stand for (aside from the usual stuff for residents abroad such as consulates, culture etc.). None of them have told me what they have been doing and none of them seem to have done any campaign outside Parliament.
So I’m contacting them! So far, I have written to Gianni Farina (PD) and Guglielmo Picchi (Polo delle Liberta’) and asked their view and their party’s view on the refuse problem in Naples and the Alitalia privatisation.
I’m just one vote out of hundreds of thousand, but it counts!
The irony is that even my home town council keeps in touch with me sending their regular magazine (which includes a short article from each party on the Council). They are also more effective: I can change my address online, request to renew my ID card online … local government does it better!!

Sex, the media & personal freedom

I realised I condensed a few thoughts in a very short piece in my post Sexy, so here are a few more thoughts.

Dignity: my main objection to the perpetual portrayal of people, mostly women, as sexual objects is that people are deprived of their humanity. I’m fed up with seeing mainstream media trashing our human dignity. Our imagination and psyche are being desensitised to the humanity of those around us. It might lead one to think that it is they who are the objects, not us, however by seeing others as less than ourselves aren’t we diminishing our own humanity?
Furthermore, a negative construction of gender such as that given by many music videos and similar material affects everybody in as much as we are judged against that yardstick/model of femininity or masculinity or feel the pressure to follow those images. Ideas and images surrounding femininity have changed, of course, but the construction of gender is always there to remind us that we do not own our social body.

Liberation vs. Liberalisation: there is the trite and idiotic argument that women working in the sex industry comes from sexual 'liberation'. It’s a rather old and disingenuous argument, which has really past its sell by date. Some, of course, might feel ‘liberated’ by playing at being sexual objects or predators. However, I think it’s more a sign of liberalisation of sex rather than liberation.
It is true that there isn’t only one form of sex work and that not all sex workers ('Prada prostitutes') are victims (although they are the majority). Nevertheless, I think that, as a society, we should strive to ensure everyone’s personal freedom. This means that we should concentrate on those who work in the sex industry as a result of having been trafficked, abused or who are addicted to drugs. I think we should also make more available treatment for sex addiction.

Consumerism: leaving gender aside, the mainstream media have concentrated in reducing us to consumers driven by our appetites and basic instincts (that’s why I refer to my post on the Century of the Self). It’s quite interesting to see that actors smoke far less in films nowadays than they used to in the past. Times have moved on, so why can’t there be a portrayal of sexual relationship and 'roles' that is more positive?

Moralisers vs. sexual freedom: some object that to see stripping or half-naked women as degradation is bigotry. The argument is flawed on three accounts. Firstly, to think of lap-dancing or soft-porn music videos as separate from the sex industry is naïve, especially given the rise in sex addiction. I am not arguing for censorship but for responsibility by those who produce videos and films.
Secondly, isn’t degrading to be seen as body parts (mostly women) or as sex-driven robots (mostly men)?
I seriously doubt that, in the majority of cases, sex workers choose freely the profession. By the way, free choice is more than lack of coercion.
Thirdly, to the risk of patronising the body parts & the robots, isn’t this just the acting out of hegemonic images? (see Gramsci!) Doesn’t labelling detractors as moralisers suit the narrative of the ‘producers’ of ‘sexy’ material? Doesn’t it equate to being a product in the consumerist chain?

The media control the media: those working in the ‘media’ often shy away from taking responsibility hiding behind the usual lame excuses, such as the trend in depicting sex & violence being widespread and the public wanting it. Images of greed, egotism and objectification are widespread, but who shapes the trend?
The idea that it’s the public who want to be fed rubbish is nonsense. After all, the public got fed up with being fed junk food at McDonald’s and McDonald’s had to switch to ‘healthier options’. How about using imagination for once rather than the trite bad taste images that fill our space?

Masculinity and femininity might be in crisis (finally!), so what? Why can't we be human? :)

Sexy

I keep on coming across appalling music videos where women act or are paraded as if they were for sale. There seems to be a very fine line between what is deemed 'sexy' in a woman and the debasing display of body parts.
Men (and women) are fed an awful lot of nonsense about what a man is supposed to like and what women are supposed to be like. The driving force is supposedly sex, which is reduced to the physical act and deprived of everything I would personally define as sexy. We are constantly being told that half-naked women behaving like idiots are sexy, that men like that and find confident women intimidating. It might be the case for many, but I believe many more are simply victim of these messages. A few considerations:

What is sexy? No, I don’t find half-naked people sexy. I don’t like body parts, I like the whole person. I find people sexy when they have sense of humour and are comfortable with themselves. I like warm clear voices and sincere smiles. I think sense of humour is the basis of attraction.
Yet, we are fed an ugly narrative that deprives us of our humanity, of our imagination and personhood. If women (or men) are reduced to body parts or men (or women) to their basic sexual instincts severed from desires, imagination and mind, what are we?
Nothing to do with sex. Research shows that men who go to lap-dancing clubs, pay for sex and so on, are not simply reacting to basic sexual instincts, they are seeking power. The idea of sexy as portrayed in a million billboards, music videos and films is one that is constructed around the dynamic of power and powerlessness. A confident woman is intimidating because she is not powerless. Music videos seem to be the worst with half-naked women crawling around with no dignity. It is a rather pathetic spectacle.
Addictive images. The ‘producers’ do not respond to a need, rather they create a dependent consumer by perpetuating a view of the world based on the old-fashion power relations. They create identities based on domination and debasement. And they are not even subtle at that! It’s advertising after all, Bernays-style!
Sex addiction is on the increase, will advertisers start thinking about the health implications of the junk they produce?

...on addiction to sex, see this from the FT. Addiction seems to be dependent on genes. However the constant exposure to the same messages, the same iconography, the same narrative habituates us to viewing the world in a certain way, anaesthetises the brain and creates a need. We banned tobacco advertising and are trying to tackle junk food, why not junk sex? For the record, I'm not advocating censorship, just responsibility. After all, the media control the media!